have spent hundreds of hours poring over the transcripts and spending time visiting with prosecutors, i believe that we have fashioned historic and amazing changes that will forever change the successful prosecution of rapists and our military and go further to protect victims as well. i come to this issue with a great deal of experience. i think it is not that i have stood in the cold room prosecuting sexual predators and

dozens and dozens of jury trials. and no one has interchange this more than i have. .. we embrace in the underlying bill. the time period in which a victim decides that she is going to come forward out of the

shadows and hold her perpetrator accountable is invariably very close in time to the time of report. it is how she is treated at that juncture, more so than anything else. more so than whether she has been victimized in the military or whether she has been victimized on the streets of your hometown. she is coming forward with the most personally painful moment of her life. now, keep in mind that if you're coming forward with the most personally painful moment of your life, how complicated that gets if you know the defense is going to be that you wanted it, that it was consensual. and then it is even more difficult. that is why the vast majority of these crimes in our country are never reported, ever. never reported, ever. >> it doesn't matter whether it's military or civilian, and

how can we at that critical moment make sure that victims get the help and support she or he needs to do the unthinkable? that is to lay herself or himself bare to the public about what has happened for the way you do that is to the reforms my colleagues stressed and that we have incorporated in this bill, and that is that every single victim gets their own lawyer. i don't think many members understand how extraordinary that is. that reform alone will make our military the most victim friendly criminal justice system in the world does a victim get that support?

that's what underlined in the reforms. we already know it works because it's been a pilot program in the air force. unlike those who said reporting will never go up unless we make another policy change, reporting is spiking in our military. up 50% just this year and that is because not only do you have to report in a chain of command, but you'll get the resource and help and knowledge you need to navigate the choppiest waters emotionally and personally that you'll ever encounter so not only have we done that in the underlying bill, but we have done other things like stripping commanders of their ability to abuse this system by changing the outcome of a trial. very important. making the crime of retaliation

a reality in the military. it should actionable in a criminal court within the military if you retaliate against a victim, and now, not only will the victim know that retaliation is a crime, not only will the unit know retaliation of the crime, the victim has her own lawyer who can help press those charges if that occurs. i mean, think of the consequences of the reform. you go back on your unit, retaliated it, call your lawyer. you won't believe what they did to me today. that lawyer helps you immediately bring charges against those who might retaliate. it requires automatic discharge from the military for rape. there's ample opportunities to debate the differences we have

about how cases are handled in the military, but i cannot say how grateful i am to the dean and to senator collins for doing this today. it is -- it is very important that we not lose sight that this is not about a bumper stick sticker. this is not one side against the other, but about doing the very best we can on the policy so that we can protect victims, prosecute offenders, and get them the hell out of our military. that's what this is about, and with every fiber of my being, i believe we are going to accomplish that with the reforms we're embracing. i'll come back to the floor to talk more about the amendment

i'll be offering on the floor to further go with the reforms that we think are necessary, and i am so grateful that the colleagues have taken a moment to recognize the obvious. what we've done is historic, what we've done we do in agreement, and what we have done is going to make a difference. thank you, mr. president. >> mr. president, how much time do we have left under the morning agreement? >> all time in morning business has currently expired. >> we have two mr. speakers and senators, the gentle lady from massachusetts and washington state. i ask unanimous concept morning business is extended for these two for proximately ten minutes. >> no objection, it's granted. >> i yield to the lady from washington state and then from massachusetts. >> the senator from washington.

>> mr. president, i first i want to thank the senator from maryland and senator from maine for helping to bring so many of us to the floor today to talk about an issue that really cuts across bipartisan -- cuts across partisan lines and has plagued our nation's military going unaddressed for far too long. military sexual assault is an epidemic, and it is rightly been identified as such by the pentagon. it is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow service member, the person you rely on to have your back and to be there for you would commit such a terrible crime. it is simply appalling that they commit such a personal violation of her brother and sister in uniform, but what's worse and what's made change an absolute necessity is the prevalence of the crimes. 26,000 service members are

sexually assaulted each year, and just over 3,000 of those assaults are reported. according to veteran affairs, one in five female veterans treated by the va have suffered sexual trauma, one in five, that's not the agent of the comrade, not in keeping with the efforts of any of the services, and it can no longer be tolerated, and that is why the women of the senate have been united in calling for action. mr. president, there's been made much of the fact there are now 20 women in the senate, a historic number that i think we all agree can still grow, but it's important to remember that the number alone should not be what is historic. instead, it's what we do with our new found strength to address the issues that are impacting women across the country. with this bill, the first defense authorization of this congress, we are doing exactly

that. we are taking historic action to help members access resources needed to seek justice without fear. mr. president, one way the bill does just that, help protect service members and assist victims and punish criminals is through the inclusion of the bill i introduced crootion party lines with senator a yacht. a bill included in the base bill creates legal advocates called special victims counsels who are responsible for advocating on behalf of the interest of the victims. these special victims counsels advise the victim on the range of legal issues they may face. for example, when a young private first class is intimidated into not reporting a sexual assault by threatening her with unrelated legal charges like underage drinking, this new advocate would be there to protect her and tell her the

truth. since january now, the air force provided advocates to over 500 victims with a new pilot program, and ten months later, the results speak for themselves. 92% of victims are extremely satisfied with the advice and support they are through the military judicial process. 98 #% would rem other victims request advocates, and 93% felt these advocates effectively fought on their behalf. in describing their experience with an advocate, one victim shared that, quote, going through this was the hardest thing i ever had to do in my life. having a special victims counsel helped tremendously. no words can describe how much i appreciate having one of these advocates. so, mr. president, through our bipartisan efforts, the defense authorization bill end hainses the responsibility and authority of dod's sexual assault

prevention and response office known as the sapro providing better oversight to military sexual assault across armed forces. sapro is requiredded to regularly track and report on a range of statistics including assault, rape, and number of cases brought to trial in compliance with the individual services. now, some of the data collection is already done, so this requirement is not going to be too burdensome, but it will give the office authority to track and report to us on extent of the problem. mr. president, i believe the great strength of our military is in the character and dedication of our men and women who wear that uniform. it is the courage of these americans who volunteer to serve who are the pentagon's greatest asset. i know it's said a lot, but take a moment to really think about

that. our service members volunteer to face danger to put their lives on the line to protect our country and all its people. when we think of those dangers, we think of ieds. we think of battle with insurgents. we shouldn't have to focus on the threats they encounter from their own fellow service members, and we should never allow for a culture in which the fear of reporting a crime allows a problem like this to fester year after year. these are dangers that can never be accepted, and none of our courageous service members should ever have to face them. earlier this year, i asked navy secretary ray davis about the sexual assault epidemic, and i was grad he told me, quote, "concern" is not a great enough word to describe the problem. he says he is angry about it, and i know many of us here are as well, particularly, our female colleagues who dedicated

suture time to the issue, share this feeling, and want to put an end to the epidemic. i'm hopeful we work quickly to do right by our nation's heros because when the best and brighter join the united states' armed forces, they do so with the understanding they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. that sacrifice should never have to come in the form of abuse from their fellow service members. i'm proud we've taken the issue head own and never be lost in the effort of the act of the changes proposed is that for too long, this was an issue that was simply swept under the rug. that is no longer the case. thanks to bipartisan cooperation, the work of thousands of dedicated advocates, and the voices of countless victims who bravely spoke out.

we are poised to make a difference on an issue that women everywhere have brought out of the shadows. i'm proud of the women that worked so hard on this issue. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. >> i want to begin by thanking the senator from maryland and senator from maine for extraordinary leadership in bringing us here today to speak out on this issue. for over 20 years, our military said they have zero tolerance policy for sexual violence. government agencies have put out 20 reports examining the problem and suggesting potential solutions, and yet shamefully incidents of sexual assault involving our military personnel continue at staggering rates. data from the department of

defense indicate that thousands of men and women serving in the military are subject to these horrific experiences every year. more than 20% of men and women in the military reported unwanted sexual contact at some point in the course of their military service. most shameful, half of all female victims in the 2012 survey indicated they did not report the crimes because they believe such reports would simply be ignored. this is an outrageous situation. we have called on the military over and over to solve this problem and they have failed. calling again on the military to reform will be an exercise in futility. worse, it's a breach of trust with the men and women who are future victims of sexual predators lurking in the military. these are important steps forward that we take today. we take -- the number of

extremely strong provisions to address sexual assault included in this year's national defense authorization agent will move us in the right direction. they are designed to crack down on sexual assault, to better protect and add have kate for victims and to change the client within the military to one that ends this dispicketble conduct. we eliminate the statute of limitations and limit ability of commanding officers to modify court findings in sexual offense cases. the bill requires a special victims counsel to provide legal support for those victims of sexual violence apt the hands of other members of the military and take steps to limit the potential for victims to be mistreated by defense counsel. there are other important steps forward in this bill, and as the

senate debates the defense bill, we'll consider additional provisions to prosecute and eliminate sexual assault. i support those efforts as well. the issue of sexual violence within our armed forces is very personal to me. all three my brothers servedded in the military. my oldest brother was career military and served 288 combat missions in vietnam. i know the unbelievable sacrifices that our military men and women make for this country and the sacrifices their families make to support them. yet, inspite of the sacrifices, we, as a nation, have consistently refused to take sufficient steps to ensure that our military men and women are protected from sexual violence on the job. tolerance for sexual assault demeans the sacrifices that millions of brave men and women have stepped forward to make on our behalf. we owe it to our service members

and to their families to change the culture in our military that remains far too tolerant of this abuse. we owe it to our service members and to their families to do everything in our power to stamp out these incidents. no matter the outcome at this amendment vote, this year's authorization agent makes significant strides towards finally making the military zero tolerance policy a reality. i'm proud to support the effort, and i promise that so long as these crimes continue to occur, so long as victims are fearful to come forward, so long as justice is denied to victims, i promise we'll be back right here next year and the year after that and the year after that doing everything we can to end sexual assault in the military. the brave men and women serving in our armed forces have no

intention of giving up on us, and we have no intention of give up on them. thank you, mr. president, i yield my time. >> senator from maryland. >> mr. president, with the statement by the gentle lady from massachusetts, we are now concluding the time that the women of the senate have taken on a bipartisan basis to speak out against sexual assault in the military and to speak for the third year reforms that we all have agreed upon on a bipartisan basis that will enable prosecute reform, help victims, guarantee fairness worthy process, and make sure that if you come forward, then you will not be retaliated against. you will not be ignored, but if you also accused, you will get a fair process.

i'm really proud of the way the seven women on the arm services committee did this and then joined by the rest of us social workers, advocates, former attorney generals are here, and we couldn't have done it, though, without the very good men on the committee, particularly, the chairmanship of senator levin and the help of senator inhofe, and i note the senator from rhode island is here. thank you for strong add advocaf women, advancement of women in the military, and also these important reforms. i also just want to say something as women. this is historical, what we did this morning. you know, you had ten women from the united states' senate across the aisle speaking out with 30 goals, 30 reforms that were agreed to in the underlining bill. this is what the american people

wanted, us working together with the chairman of the committee, listening to victims, listening to experts, listening to the military you know what's disappointing to me? there's one person in the press gallery. if we're in conflict, there's differences later on, differences in policy, that's okay with me, but we don't make the press anymore, we don't make press when we actually work together and work with such incredible diligence and expertise among themselves to solve these really egregious and historically intran gent problems. we know you like conflict. you like controversy. you particularly want to see that among the women. you know, we have a president where we have disagreed before on goals. when i had the fight with

hitchenson, took me on with nine amendments, had a good debate, and we had a good bill at the end of it. senator, the gentle lady from alaska, has also disagree with me with matters on what should be the best approach on preventative health. debate, diligence, without personal conflict, we then came up with good ideas. i say here today. when i listen to the colleagues on the other side of the aisle, again, with great backgrounds, and here today, this is historic. if you are watching on c-span, you saw history being made, ten of us, and more later on today, where we actually agreed. we're trying to govern the way we were elected to govern, and i'm proud of what we're going to do with the reforms that are there, and i'm proud of the way we've gone about it, and if we disagree on matters here or

there, that's what debate and rigor and civility will be all about. mr. president, i conclude the debate for now, other women come throughout the day, and we know we'll be debating some other important policy goals. mr. president, i yield the floor. [inaudible conversations]

>> i think there was a lot to think about as we leave. there's a long meeting and a lot of questions were asked, and a lot of questions were answered, but i think everybody will go back and seek counsel for a few hours. i think you know we crafted some language. the events of this weekend, if there ends up being an agreement, almost renders nose not useful. i think we all know where we are as far as, you know, the status of the discussions, so i would think you probably have folks in the room that were satisfied. you had those who were dissatisfied, and you had those listening to what's said and figuring 90 the best way for congress to move ahead. i think it goes without saying

congress played a huge role in causing us to be where we are today. i think everyone acknowledges that, and people are concerned. i happen to be one that is concerned that we're giving up leverage and i think the specificity of the interim deal is something, again, i have additional questions that i'm going to be talking with secretary kerry over the next few days, but it was a meeting that was appreciated, and i think there's a much greaterrensing as to what's on the table, what the keel -- deal is, and the president, you know, asked for some time for this to be negotiated and see if iran lives up to the obligations that the p5 plus one puts in place. >> how would you describe it in a sense the way it was -- >> i don't -- i mean, i'm not in the room relative to actual

negotiations. at least the way it was presented, it's not as if it's --ic there's still concerns. maybe that's the wrong word. i don't think anybody knows as to whether, you know, the sides will be able to agree to something this weekend. >> how long are you willing to give the president? how much time are you willing to give the president? >> well, he asked for a period of time. again, i think i want to go back and digest everything said myself. i know there's some folks who want to announce things over the next few days. again, my only goal is candidly good things for our country and the world relative to this negotiation. i want to, again, take into account what's said today and think about what i think the most responsible thing is for congress to do in light of what has been shared, and with that, i better go. thank you, y'all.

>> do you think the senate waits until after thanksgiving? >> i will say to that that i don't think there's any choice relative to, you know, congress waiting until after thanksgiving because i think, as you know, senator reid filled up the tree yesterday, which to your listening audience means nothing, but what it means to all of you who cover this daily is there will be no amendments that will be offered on ndaa, the only moving vehicle, so, i mean, you can talk about what if, but i think one thing is for sure, there will be no amendments that will pass the united states' senate for sure until -- relative to this anyway, until we come back from thanksgiving. >> [inaudible] >> sir, what about relations with israel? did this come up as a concern from the senators expressed to the president? >> there was not a discussion relative to relations. there was a discussion relative to their concerns.

so -- >> [inaudible] >> well, just, i mean, this -- there were -- these were -- there were technical issues raisedment i mean, i think all of us seek sources not just in the country, but around the world relative to what's happening on the ground, and so it was not -- again, it was solely focused on iran, solely focused on the sanctions, solely focused on, you know, the requests that is there from the administration, what they think -- they were explicit about what they think they may be able to achieve, and it's the most explicit explanation we've had of that. >> do you think the president is being naive about this? >> i think we are all concerned. we know who we are dealing with. we watch this same type of activity occur in north korea where you begin to alleviate sanctions, and i think what the concern is that whatever you do

on the interim basis becomes the new norm, that, in fact, that is, in fact, the deal, and there's great concern about that, so thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> i think women's identities are tied to work in a way we don't like, which we find, you know, disturbing and unnatural, but it is true. when i look at meyer, the ceo of yahoo when she was visibly

pregnant and was asked, you know, how much maternity leave do you want to take, and she said, basically, none, like, the fact that those women exist is not the way i would do -- i mean, i took plenty of leave, but i feel like that is a growing number of, the kind of woman there can be space for and there's some stay at home dads who are happy, do not all entirely live in portland, oregon, that's okay too.

>> good morning, i convene the hearing of subcommittee on oversight and investigation to discuss the security of the healthcare.gov website.

up to the launch of the website. this committee, heard from sebelius, and director gary cohen they were ready by october 1. we are all deeply troubled the individuals who want to be in charge of america's health care system could not predict accurately if the website would work. those predictions were not just limited to the website. we've been routinely promised the website was safe and americans' personal information would be secure. when administrator appearedded before the committee, she said began, and that would be completed in august of this year. we've now learned this was not the case. end-to-end testing is not possible when the website is not completed. today, we hope to hear from the witnesses about how much of the website remains to be built. if the first parts of healthcare.gov have been this problematic, we are obviously concerned about parts that are constructed under current pressures and time constraints. the witness for the first panel

is henry chow, chief information officer at the centers for medicare, medicaid services, thank you for testifying today, and i can only imagine how stressful the last few months have been for you. welcome here. i hope you appreciate the fact that hhs has a ways to go to retain the trust of the american people on this website. they were promised a functioning website as easy as buying a tv on amazon, and what they got was a train wreck. the reason the trust of the american people is difficult to regain is because every day new revelations show this wreak was foreseeable. last week, there's e-mails uncovered showing as early as july of this year, mr. chow, the first witness, was worried the company primarily responsible for building the website, cgi would, quote, crash on takeoff, unquote. materials as early as march to april of this year, top administration officials were well aware that healthcare.gov was far off schedule and testing

of the website would be limited. we have also learnedded that healthcare.gov was only launched after the ad min straiter signed authority to operate, with a memo warning her a full security control assessment was not yet completed. this memo makes it clear the highest levels of cms knew there were security risks present. yet again, whim the document was signed in private, administration officials were promising in public that only in a few days, the american people would be able to use a per felgtly functioning website. a few weeks ago, the secretary told the committee the highest standards are in place and people have every right to respect privacy. i hope today we hear what the standards are from not only from mr. chow and also from our second panel as well. our second panel features contractors responsible for the security of healthcare.gov, and i thank you for testifying today, and disappointed one company responsible for security, verizon, chose not the

testify today. we'll be following up with verizon to be accountable to the public for their work here. today's hearing is not just about the website. websites can be fixed. the damage to the american people could not be fixed if perm data is compromised. right now, healthcare.gov screams to those trying to break into the system, if you like my healthcare information, maybe you can steal it. i recognize ms. degette of colorado for five minutes. >> thank you very much, chairman murphy. i add my thanks to mr. chow for being here today as well as the three other witnesses. we must make sure that the health care -- that the data on healthcare.gov is secure. everybody can agree on that. the american people must know that their data's protected when they go on the site to find equality, affordable insurance plan for themselves, and their families. this is critical. however, my fear is that today's hearing is actually less about

the facts of the security of healthcare.gov and more about political points and underminding the aca. now, without a doubt, no one could disagree that there are troubling problems with the rollout of the exchanges. three weeks ago, our full committee hell the first hearing on the inexcusable fact that healthcare.gov seemed to have been broke p since it was first launched. three weeks later while improving, it's clearly not up to speed. as i've said before, the exchanges need to be fixed, and they need to be fixed fast so that the american people can easily access quality, affordable insurance policy plans open to them. i hope we'll have another hearing after the november 30th deadline to see how they are working. my fear about this hearing today, though, is that it won't enlighten the american public, but raise unjustified fares about security piling on all the other issues. now, obviously, as i said, we need to make sure that the data on healthcare.gov is secure, but

we should not create smoke if there's no fire, so before we begin, i want to give the american people some peace of mind based on the facts that we know about security on healthcare.gov. first, and critically, no american has to provide any personal health information to healthcare.gov or to insurers in order to qualify for health coverage and subsidies. to make sure about this, i went on the exchange myself the other day, and that's because the aca bans discrimination based on preexisting health conditions. before the aca became law, americans buying coverage on the individual insurance policy market had to fill out page after page of personal health information to apply for insurance, but no longer thanks to the affordable care act. american do not have to turn over any private health insurance to get coverage. second, while no website in the government or in the private sector is 100% secure,

unfortunately, there's a complex, detailed set of rules that hhs must follow to ensure data on healthcare.gov is secure, and i'm looking forward to hearing from you, mr. chow, about the security issues today. the agency has a long record of maintaining personal information about medicare, medicaid, social security, and many areas, and has never had a significant leak of information. hhs must comply with the federal information security management act and national institute of standards and technology guidelines to protect information systems and the data collected or main taped by healthcare.gov, and like all federal agencies, hhs is required to develop document, and implement an agency wide information security program. today, our committee's investigation has found that cms has complied with every important security rule and guideline. they hired a small army of contractors to make sure the

website is secure. they are going to talk to us about it today. the memo, mr. chairman, that you talked about at our last hearing, that identified some security concerns, primarily, a lack of end-to-end testing on healthcare.gov, but it also outlined a mitigation plan, one we learned the agency was following to mitigate security risks, so i want to hear from the contractor, and from you, mr. chow, if, in fact, these findings are being heeded. now, unfortunately, mr. chairman, i have to raise one more issue in my remaining minute, and that is this committee's grand tradition of bipartisanship investigation. apparently, the committee last thursday received a memo from cms, red team discussion document, and the majority of the committee did not share the memo with the minority of this committee until yesterday. coi understand didn'tly, just after --

coincidentally, after it was released to the "washington post," and, mr. chairman, you were quoted in the story talking about the concerns of the readiness of the exchange base on the memo. it's not the topic of the hearing today, but i have to say it's not in the tradition of the committee to conduct investigations that way, and when the majority received the memo, it should have immediately provided it to all of the members so that we could read it and find out that we're all just as concerned about making the exchanges work, and to that end, mr. waxman and i written a letter expressing displeasure, and we'd like to enter that into the record at this time, mr. chairman. >> that's fine, and i look forward to talking about the procedures. i know this came as part of a couple hundred thousand pages of documents we're going through, but glad to review that with you because i respect my colleague. >> certainly, you can find it in time to give it to the

washington post for today's hearing and to be quoted. we'll have a good discussion on that. i recognize mr. upton for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for months, administration witnesses came before this committee and assured us that the implementation of the president's health care law was on track, their words. healthcare.gov would be ready for the october 1 launch. why not give the straight story to the congress and the public because back on april 18th, secretary sebelius testified in this very room, we have the federal hub on track and on time, i can tell you, we are on track. those are her words. we now know that the secretary's testimony did not match what happened behind the scenes. two weeks before she testified before this committee, she was present in an april 4th meeting where experts identified significant threats and risks launching the site on october 1st.

the administration was on track for disaster, but they sphaid the course, repeating claims that it was all well. even after the launch, administration officials insisted that the volume was primarily the culprit when they, in fact, knew otherwise. our law is not just the website, no, it's not. it's about whether the public can rely on the health care system they built for over throe years spending hundreds of millions of dollars. there's significant consequences for all americans. one important question is whether the individuals will be able to enroll and obtain coverage by january 1. security is another critical concern. how can the public trust a hastily thrown together system in which meeting a deadline was more important for the administers than conducting complete end-to-end testing of the site's security.

henry chow, deputy chief information officer of cms is here to answer the questions. cms is management of the federal exchange and the implications for security. mr. chow, i understand you're a career employee, been at cms for year, and i know as chairman murphy indicated, the last few months have not been particularly easy. last march, you were one of the first to publicly offer a glimpse of the true situation when you candidly remarked about the website and said, let's just make sure it's not a third world experience. documents produced to the committee painted a clear picture that administration officials, in fact, knew for months before the october 1 date about delays and problems through the website development. mr. chow, you have been responsible for managing the development of the healthcare.gov, but i can imagine many matters were outside your control. given the lack of end-to-end

testing, i hope you can explain to us today why the administration felt confident in the security of healthcare.gov when the system went live on october 1. we're also joinedded by three companies that were awarded contracts by cms to provide security services for the federal exchange. these companies are here also today to answer questions about the roles, and i know subjects of the security provides certain sensitivities, and i'm glad they acceptedded the invitation to testify and inform us about how healthcare.gov works or doesn't. one thing that we have learned, there are countless contractors involved in building this website, and responsibilities are divided, very divided. it's a complex system, i know, but we'd like to know how the delays and rushed implementation affected or complicated the ability to perform the security work for the website. i yield the balance of my time. >> i thank the chairman for the

recognition, and i thank the witnesses for being here today. broad agreement of the implementation was problematic and rather than getting better, it may be getting worse. we got low enrollment numbers. the website's so bad, it required the appointment a a glitch czar, broken promises from the president just for starters. this breaks the surface of the deeper issues that lie ahead for not just the law, but for the american people that must live under the law, and, plft chow, you probably, prior to anyone else sounded the alarm, and i know you are tired of hearing it, but your comments that you were trying to prevent the website from being a third world experience, i admire your ability to see over the horizon and kill the problems before they hit you in the windshield, but, also, you're the one who recommended it was safe too launch the website on october 1st, so what happened in those

six months that led you, yourself, and others in the administration to believe this law was, in fact, ready for prime time? not only did the center for medicare and medicaid services fail to establish basic functionality, but healthcare.gov's flaws continue to pose a threat to the security of americans' perm data, and just on a personal note, when i went to healthcare.gov this morning, it was still not functional, but another website can tell me about plans available in my area. we know it was possible to do this. we are all wondering why it was not. thank you, mr. chairman, i'll yield back. >> the chair yields back. mr. waxman. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the last six weeks have been a difficult one for supporters of the affordable care act. many were prevented from signing

up for the coverage they now qualify, and it has been relentlessly exploited for political game by republican opponents of the law. i was interested to hear the dpraiz in the two republican statements. maybe in all of them. we don't want a third world website. i'll tell you what's third world. third world in this country is when we leave millions of people unable to get insurance because they can't afford it. no other industrial country allows such a thing to happen, but that's what republicans who oppose this law would have us return to. i think we're turning the corner on the website. on friday, jeff zine, the administration's point person on healthcare.gov, announced two key measures of improvement, and it seems to me, these are good signs that the website is

getting better. additional improvements are needed, but healthcare.gov means more and more people are signing up for coverage as the website becomes more usable. i want to tell you what's happening at california. in the first month, 35,000 people enrolled in the exchange, over 70,000 qualified for medicaid, and state officials say that the pace of enrollment is increasing. it's just the first 12 days of november, enrollment from the first month almost doubled. now, i know we're looking today another the issue of data security on healthcare.gov. it's an important issue. we should begin the aca represents an enormous step forward for privacy because when people apply for insurance coverage, the law bans them from being asked questions about their underwriting, about their medical condition, about the privacy of things that affect their health because it's not

necessary to ask those questions. they are not going to be denied insurance coverage because of previous medical problems, but there is some perm information that people are going to be asked for when they sign up, and we need to ensure that this information is protected. this question comes up repeatedly, came up repeatedly when secretary sebelius was before us. she told us the department is placing a high priority on the security of the website and the highest security standards are in place to protect perm information on healthcare.gov. i hope this hearing will be serious, even-handed inquiry, but i fear some of my republican colleagues may exaggerate security concerns to stoke public fear and exager rate it so that they could diswade people from even signing up. this is exactly what this

subcommittee did when they launched an investigation into non-profit community organizations serving as healthcare navigators. they were harassing people in order to prevent them from helping people learn what is available to them. yesterday, we learned you withheld important documents, leaking them to the press before providing them to the democratic members and staff. i sent you a letter this morning describing why this is a violation of the committee's precedent. it's not the way the committee traditionally operated raising concerns about whether the hearings are becoming another partisan attempt to weaken the forel care act. the committee should not go down that road. we should be using our oversight powers to approve the affordable care act, not to sabotage it or discourage americans from signing up for quality care. i want to yield my time,

mr. chair. >> i thank the gentleman. i ask unanimous concept to extend my remarks, and i'm pleased to be here and my prescription for the washington post is in effect so i can see what's leaked by the republican colleagues to the media. this is interesting. we have clearly a violation of the practices, traditions, and histories of this committee and investigations it's done. i speak as a member who read more investigations than anybody in the room including more than all of them put together. here we have a breach of the responsibility of the leadership to make information available to the committee at the same time they make it to the press. i find that difficult, but worse than that, i find it intolerable that this committee is running around fishing for trouble where none exists. i feel a little bit like the old maid who came home and looked under the bed to find out if

somebody was there, hoping, in fact, there would be. unfortunately, there is not. i have seen no evidence of any complaints or any evidence of misbehavior with regard to the information that is controlledded by the government. i would urge this committee to spend its time trying to make this situation work and see to it that we collect the information that's necessary to make the website work and see to it that we register the americans so that we can cease being a third world nation both with how the congress runs and how the healthcare of the country works. >> the gentleman's time expired. >> we are in the third world nations in the way we take care of the health of the people. >> thank you. >> it'll give you a shock. >> the time expired. thank you very much. we'd like to introduce the witness on the first panel for the today's hearing. henry chow served since january 2011 as the deputy chief information officer and deputy director for office of information services at the

centers of medicare and medicaid services. he's been in the office of consumer information and insurance oversight and chief technology officer for cms. i'll swear in the witness. you are aware, mr. chow, the committee is holding investigative hearing, and when doing so, have the practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have objection of taking testimony under oath? the witness indicates no. the chair advices you under the rules of the house and committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel. do you desire to be advised during your testimony today? no. would you please rise, raise your right hand. i'll swear you in. do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. you're now under oath subject to penalties set forth in title 18 section 1001 of the united states' code. you may now give a five-minute summary of the written statement.

ensure the microphone is on and pull it close to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member degette, and thank you for allowing me to testify. the security and protection of personal and financial information is top priority for cms which, for decades, protected personal information of the more than is -- more than 100 million americans. the protection of personal information in cms programs is a monumental responsibility. every day, cms enrolls new beneficiaries, pays claims timely and efficiently, and protects the information of consumers and providers. cms used this experience and our security best practicings to build a secure federal market place that consumers should feel confident in trusting with their personal information. cms follows federal law, government-wide security processes, and standard business practices to ensure stringent

security and privacy protection. cms's security protections are not singular in nature, rather the marketplace is protected by an extensive set of security layers. first and foremost, the application, the online application is developed with secure code. second, the application infrastructure is physically and logically protected by our hosting provider. third, the application is protected through a defense shield in order to protect unauthorized access to any personal data. finally, several entities provide direct and indirect security monitoring, security testing, and security oversight including the various organizational groups that cms are reporting to key stake holders with respect to security and privacy. this includes the department of health and him services. we also work in conjunction with

u.s. serge, operated by department of homeland security and emergency response team, and the office of the inspector general of hhs. each of these groups have varying roles to ensure operational management and technical controls are implemented and successfully working. the facilitated marketplace is protected by the high standards demanded of federal information systems including regulations and standards prescribed by fism, the privacy act and directors prom gaited by the government. they designed the marketplace i.t. systems and hubs to reduce vulnerabilities and increase efficiency. a large number of connections can cause security vulnerability. there's one highly secure connection between highly protected data bases of trusted states and federal agencies and hundreds of connections that would have been established as part of how normal business

practices in present day how government connects organizations with each other to conduct business. a series of business agreements enforce privacy controls between cms and our federal and state partners. additionally, cms designed the market place systems to limit the amount of personal data stored and protects personal information and limits access through passwords, encryption technologies, zoned architecture with fire wall protection in between the zones, and various other security controls to monitor logging and to prevent unauthorized access to our systems. cms protects the federal market place through intensive and stringent security testing. while the marketplace had performance issues that could have been addressed through comprehensive functionality and performance testing, i want to be clear that we have conducted extensive security testing for

the systems live on october 1st. we continue to test security on a daily and weekly basis. new functions or code prior to launch, of course, we are working around the clock to fix performance issues so that the vast majority of users have a smooth experience by the end of the month. ..